WHY THE FACE?

SCOUTING/DRAFT SNAFU E.G.'s: Alfred Morris, Zac Stacy, Richard Sherman

Yeah, it's a gamble and in exact science. There's the scientific side that looks at athletic measurable and the examination of "football skills" of draftees in the scouting process. Obviously, it's a blend that translates best. Generally, they're all athletes at this level and it's the football skills and instincts that separate the players from the bums. Those extra athletic guys that are great football players are the ones who become the elite.

Anyway, why did scouts do consensus eff ups on these players? Zac Stacy and Alfred Morris were rated so poorly. Richard Sherman switched from wide receiver to cornerback while in college, and because of this, I think the uncertainty and lack of games, tape, and experience hurt him. How do they mess up this bad?

Look at the scouting reports. But if you read the SN Sherman scouting reports they're spot on, so why did it take until the 5th round for someone to nab him? These guys obviously knew something.

Alfred Morris
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/p.../alfred-morris

Zac Stacy

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/p...4982/zac-stacy

Richard Sherman

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/p...orical/1117823

Good scouting report on Sherman

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/draf...ound/5/pick/23

We need to find some gems in the 4th and 5th this year. Furthermore, I like picking the BPA but really don't like picking RB's high. I'd rather get several backs and have a committee system. They really don't last long. If you have a good line and system, and in his pass first league, you can gets by without having an elite back.

And obviously, as these scouting reports and previous drafts show, high RBs can be complete busts and franchise changing backs can be found in later rounds. I don't have numbers but I think RBs are the players that have the highest frequency of failure after being high picks.